Excellent piece. The damage done to many people is still shocking to see. People moving away if people are mask less, still keeping signs and floor markings in areas that should be long gone the ridiculous screens still present in many areas causing barriers and sometimes a danger opening windows on buses refusing cash the presence of hand gel the list is endless. I obtained a copy of the nudge book years ago as I was well aware how psychology can be used against people I would destroy this as an evil text. I hope people can recover from the trauma inflicted and the people responsible are dealt with.
Oh, great; Another person posting the facts, then waiting for "Daddy-Government" to prove what a Caring Parent he is, not act to save the lives of children. Just what we need.
1) Politicians are exempt from zero laws in zero nations. 2) It IS illegal to a) mandate untested products, B) coerce or intimidate anyone OR their children to have them injected into them, C) as the articles of impeachment against Trump reminded us, take private $ while in public office (for OBVIOUS REASONS: like the ones you're all whining about right now) & D) give corporations "legal" (they aren't) protections from the harms done by their products.
So you & the hundreds of sites out there also reporting on this have FAR more than enough people on board with ending the mandates than even your governments could block or dismiss (especially as the public, once they see thousands of others on board with this would support it) & yet I can't PAY any of you hypocrites & cowards to even discuss joining in on taking those legal, non-violent measures.
But that's not what you want. You want Daddy to show He Cares. You cowards fantasize about that happening via the agency of whining because that's how Adoring Children appeal to their Daddies. Here, we're dealing with lobbyists.
How tf is WHINING going to cause LOBBYISTS o turn into your Desired Surrogate-Daddies?
& until this DOES work, you're all going to wait for "someone" always meaning someone ELSE to act.
It has to be someone else. And they have to not implicate Daddy-Government in this. Our Beliefs that 'Government' = a Caring Parent are threatened, & far more important to any of you than children's lives. & you'll all prove this by NOT attempting to use these legal, non-violent options to save them.
Despite everything you all say on social media, you all STILL LEAVE everyone who TRIES to fight 'Government' with zero support in the real world.
I have not seen any discussion who should conduct this inquiry. I do not know anyone I would trust with this task. I suspect there has been a huge breakdown of trust, without which a society cannot operate. For example, in the past I would trust my doctor to treat me according to his or her best judgement. Not any more, as doctors seemed to become obedient servants of the State.
Who is conducting this inquiry? What will be done with the results? Will any media carry them? Isn't this just another sop for couch potatoes to pretent the're doing something?
Happy to see this going on in the UK; it gives me hope that one day the same will occur here in Canada. Keep up the great work, Laura, it's definitely appreciated.
I'll bet your new Liberal-NDP arrangement will make sure that never happens. Plenty of time till 2025 to shred the paperwork. If it does ever happen, the scope will be 'Was the government 100% correct, or should it have locked down/mandated even faster, harder, and longer?'
You have a good point; although even if my gov't doesn't admit it's own error, international pressure might still come to bear once citizens around the world see the crimes that have been committed. It's ironic; when I grew up in the 80's Canada was one of the nations putting pressure on South Africa stop it's discrimantory practices. I never thought I'd be hoping for my own country to be the target one day!
I submitted my response a few weeks ago. Probably missed out quite a few things, but anyway, any response counts.
I saw you included vaccine injuries-will be interesting to see if that one gets taken up. I have been baffled by the government message on vaccines, because no matter what you think about vaccines, they are never 100% safe and in this particular case the level of uncertainty regarding safety was much higher.
Would be interesting if we can get a handle on number of responses received through FOI? What is the criterium for an issue to be added to the inquiry? Who decides?
Great list and very comprehensive. For #2 I would also single out the elderly, care home residents, single-person households, carers, the disabled, those with mental health conditions, and SEN individuals. Was any impact assessment done about how restrictions and covid protocols would affect these groups?
For #10 I would also question whether any data was collected on the effects of mandatory isolation of those identified as 'close contacts' of positive 'cases'. This was originally 14 days, then cut down to 10, then made dependent on vaccination status, and then, with omicron, it became 5 days regardless of vaccination status. What evidence was used to determine the number of days of isolation for contacts and why was the policy changed in August 2021 to make it conditional on vaccination status? How many work days and school days are estimated to have been lost as a result of healthy people having to isolate (starting in September 2020 when it was made compulsory), and is there any data on what % of those who were isolating went on to develop symptoms?
I would also like to see a specific question into the policy of hotel quarantine and the creation of the 'red list'. Who devised this policy, what evidence supported it, and what % of travellers forced into 14- or 10-day detention periods actually went on to test positive? Again, was any impact assessment done on how hotel quarantine would affect people in particular situations? (Older people, those with health issues, lone travellers, families with small children, people experiencing grief or hardship...) On what legal grounds did the state enforce this, and why were individuals forced to foot the bill for their own detention?
As a general point, I'd also like to question why no attempt was made in spring 2020 to run serological studies to understand how widespread the virus was and how many people may have already had some level of protection from prior infection. Why did models and govt messaging treat this virus as being entirely new as of March 2020, and why was the entire population considered to be immunologically naive to it and susceptible to disease? (Early on, data from the Diamond Princess indicated many people would remain asymptomatic even if infected...)
In terms of specific behavioural psychology questions, I would expand on #2. How many different communications agencies were hired by the govt for the purpose of running media & advertising campaigns, and how much was each contract worth? How many different campaigns involved influencer outreach (at both micro level -- e.g. on-boarding faith leaders and 'community champions' -- and at celebrity level -- e.g. on-boarding the likes of Lewis Hamilton, Ian McKellen, the Royal Family, etc.) and who drove these?
Further areas of inquiry:
How much grant money was awarded to local authorities and other bodies for the purpose of 1) promoting covid rules, covid testing and covid messaging, and 2) increasing vaccination uptake? How was this money spent?
Once Test & Trace was set up, was there any data indicating that the 'tracing' element was accomplishing anything? Similarly, the rollout of the T&T app and the 'pinging' of individuals based on 'checking in' to venues -- what was the scientific grounds for this, what were the objectives, what happened with all the data collected, and what did this technological approach to mitigating viral spread actually achieve?
Great summary here and I would be interested to see whether any of this is addressed / responded to in the coming years. We will be feeling the aftermath of this for a long time yet. I’ve had my two children in this pandemic and I just want to be back to normal. I don’t want my children’s speech and language development to be impacted upon and I certainly don’t want them to remember this time. It’s traumatising enough for me. When people say that not wearing a mask makes them feel nervous well people continually wearing them despite the lack of scientific evidence to suggest they work makes me nervous and frankly angry. I am done with all of this. I just want normal life again but I fear we’re a long way from that yet. It’s the classic saying: ‘fear of fear itself’
Masked faces are very unhealthy. Not just for the wearer. But for the health of society.
I'm old enough to remember actually banning facial coverings outright. As recently as 2019, less than three years ago, masks were *banned* outright on public transportation. For good reasons upheld by international courts. Do those rational and legal justifications for banning them not apply today?
2014
"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".
The law, introduced in 2010, makes it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place...the law was not aimed at the burqa or veil but any covering of the face in a public place...
...The European judges decided...that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.
Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab "incompatible" with the rule of law.
Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing."
The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", Niedlispacher added."
"On August 1, 2019, the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,”also known as the “Burqa Ban,” entered into force in the Netherlands. The Act prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other. Thus, face-covering clothing is banned on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allowed in such public spaces as on train platforms. The ban applies to burqas, niqabs, full-face helmets, balaclavas, and masks, but not to headscarves."
Until facial coverings are banned outright the manipulated and coerced psychosis that has taken hold of our society will remain. Faces are necessary, are a requirement for public life, for civil society. The rationale that international courts found true just before Covid still applies. It never stopped applying.
Additional scientific background on the importance of faces, visible expressions, for a healthy society and healthy social interactions. A 2009 research study titled, "Of snakes and faces: An evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear." Yes, they've terrorized us no differently than if they've made us look at snakes all around us all day, every day. It takes constant higher reasoning reminders to self to push through the fear and anxiety masked faces creates just as surely as if surrounded by snakes all the time, even at an subconscious level.
I have the freedom to go back to my life without feeling restricted; my children grow up into world where they can see everyone’s’ faces and read their facial expressions and there is no compromise on their speech and language development; I’m not made to feel guilty for not wearing a mask because of the distress is causes me and I don’t read anymore statistics and figures that ‘estimate’ the numbers of covid cases in the UK.
Excellent submission Laura one of the areas most concerning was the unacceptable and unaccountable use of the nudge unit to spread lies and enforce compliance via fear. In what other areas is this being used or contemplated : I am sure we could all draw up a list where we feel we are being manipulated
Download the .pdf they make available on the link. Lots of insights. The UN's Agenda 2030 is a twin presentation of the WEF's Great Reset, fyi.
Behavioral Science is how you will own nothing and be happy. Is how you will eat less meat and prefer eating bugs. In fact, "there's an app for that," for every single public policy agenda you can fathom. A plug-and-play template. Mask adoption. Reduce carbon for climate change. Suggestive gender dysphoria (population control). You name it. Here's the template applying vaccination uptake manipulation:
For additional understanding for Laura's readers, joining with David Cameron's establishment of the BIT in the UK Pres. Obama created the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), headed by Maya Shankar (more on her later) in 2015. The SBST ended when Trump eliminated the team...but it was reconstituted at the GSA as the Office of Evaluation Services (OES), serving all federal agencies.
Both the US and UK teams work closely together on coercing citizens using behavioral science. They tout the "nudges" as gentle and benevolent coercion:
A woman named Maya Shankar headed up the SBST under Obama. She is also a coauthor of the UN Behavioral Insights Achieving Agenda 2030 publication linked above. She now serves as Google's Global Behavioral Scientist.
A Chelsea Clinton podcast she was on in 2021 with Frank Luntz, a Republican messaging guru, roommate with GOP House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy. In other words, she has "reach":
The SBST she headed built upon the theories of Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler and their "Nudge Unit" approach to coercion and manipulation as public policy "enhancers." Side note - Sunstein is married to Samantha Power, former Obama UN Ambassador, and he worked closely with Jessica Hertz, who headed up the Biden administration's staff search and served as Biden's Staff Secretary.
It's actually a very small universe of the same people who have insinuated themselves across the entirety of the information power spectrum across the world. We ARE being manipulated in most every single aspect of our lives. The food shortages and inflationary pressures intentionally designed to accustom us to scarcity. Hint: Ukraine-Russia is the cover story, not the meaningful story. The goal is fewer options for consumers, SIMPLER an acronym used by insiders who assert that the masses are overwhelmed by too many choices. Reducing options and choices makes for leaner, more efficient production and supply distribution.
It's everywhere. The science of totalitarianism. Has the whole world in its hands. And is tightening its grip into a firm clench right before our very eyes. It should scare everyone. And it's why taking control of this Inquiry is so important for the future of humanity.
And let there be no mistake when I write that Ukraine-Russia is the cover story, not the meaningful story. If you believe our leaders and the powerful puppetmasters behind them surely wouldn't kill innocent civilians, wouldn't use war to achieve their totalitarian goals allow me to disabuse you of such sentiments. They unleashed a virus and pandemic response - including placing known sick people into vulnerable senior homes across the world - and instituted harsh, known immune system-lowering pandemic restrictions on innocent civilians that have killed millions. Forced experimental gene therapy injections into the arms of innocent civilians, exaggerating efficacy, downplaying injurious and deadly side effects. And God only knows how many other ways they have altered our existences in ways that harm our health and life expectancy.
Joseph Stalin said, "Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet," when commenting on the deaths of innocent civilians as he ushered in Soviet communism. By "eggs" he was referring to "skulls." Such is a totalitarian regime. Where murdering innocent civilians "for their own good," the good of the masses as they envision, is acceptable.
This organization, the Global Association of Applied Behavioural Scientists (GAABS) was created in September, 2020 by the very same behaviorists who are responsible for the abuses of the behavioral sciences. An association created ostensibly as a self-governing entity to define the ethical practice of the behavioral sciences.
(leading financial sponsors are at the bottom of the Home page, press releases and such under the Resources tab)
The history of such organizations is such that they insinuate themselves into the public policy arena and become the "leading authority" that officials rely on for information and cite when making public policy decisions. That's the cover story, anyways. The reality is they typically become the foxes guarding the henhouse.
I suspect any inquiry being conducted will utilize the resources of GAABS, and other industry insider resources that are similarly controlled by the abusers they are investigating. Comments to the Inquiry might want to take that into account.
Also, a leading behavioral health publication, Health Affairs, is known to be a resource for leaders deciding public policy in the US and worldwide.
On the About tab you'll find they proudly declare that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts, cited Health Affairs in his ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
Inquiries like the one being undertaken in the UK are rare opportunities for the public to see and weigh in on issues so consequential to our current and future governance. As a former lobbyist with two decades of experience shaping public health policy at the state level in the US I'm very familiar with how politicians and bureaucrats utilize information to support their desired public policy goals. Cherry-picking and sourcing that which is helpful, ignoring and discrediting that which isn't.
As concerned citizens we must know and identify their tactics and do all we can to push back on their attempts to defer to authority they deem above reproach, such as they'll no doubt try to do with GAABS and have done with HA. "Authorities" that are actually the foxes guarding the henhouses must be called out as such and denied their status. They are infinitely reproachable, and must be reproached.
Thankyou for the work you are doing - Governments need to be held to account and their manipulative actions publicised if for nothing more than to ‘wake people up’, they cannot be allowed to get away with it.
I have made my input, and having read yours just now, I fear we are fighting a lost battle. The UK and many other nations have been signed up to a treaty with the WHO/UN, that commits us to a certain course of actions in the event of a global "pandemic" and I wonder exactly how much freedom our government has had to implement its own policies. The frightening thing is that we are about to sign up to another such treaty, (by 1st May I believe), that will abdicate even more power to the UN/WHO over our lives.
Can you imagine in the next "pandemic", (and there WILL be one I'm sure), how we, as individuals might be REQUIRED to submit to a "vaccine" because the treaty states our government must comply with a WHO/UN directive? What use our government then? This is a major step in the direction of a one world government that no one has ever voted for.
I have expressed my concerns to my MP and was given a "speech" in return, effectively dismissing them.
Excellent piece. The damage done to many people is still shocking to see. People moving away if people are mask less, still keeping signs and floor markings in areas that should be long gone the ridiculous screens still present in many areas causing barriers and sometimes a danger opening windows on buses refusing cash the presence of hand gel the list is endless. I obtained a copy of the nudge book years ago as I was well aware how psychology can be used against people I would destroy this as an evil text. I hope people can recover from the trauma inflicted and the people responsible are dealt with.
Oh, great; Another person posting the facts, then waiting for "Daddy-Government" to prove what a Caring Parent he is, not act to save the lives of children. Just what we need.
1) Politicians are exempt from zero laws in zero nations. 2) It IS illegal to a) mandate untested products, B) coerce or intimidate anyone OR their children to have them injected into them, C) as the articles of impeachment against Trump reminded us, take private $ while in public office (for OBVIOUS REASONS: like the ones you're all whining about right now) & D) give corporations "legal" (they aren't) protections from the harms done by their products.
So you & the hundreds of sites out there also reporting on this have FAR more than enough people on board with ending the mandates than even your governments could block or dismiss (especially as the public, once they see thousands of others on board with this would support it) & yet I can't PAY any of you hypocrites & cowards to even discuss joining in on taking those legal, non-violent measures.
But that's not what you want. You want Daddy to show He Cares. You cowards fantasize about that happening via the agency of whining because that's how Adoring Children appeal to their Daddies. Here, we're dealing with lobbyists.
How tf is WHINING going to cause LOBBYISTS o turn into your Desired Surrogate-Daddies?
& until this DOES work, you're all going to wait for "someone" always meaning someone ELSE to act.
It has to be someone else. And they have to not implicate Daddy-Government in this. Our Beliefs that 'Government' = a Caring Parent are threatened, & far more important to any of you than children's lives. & you'll all prove this by NOT attempting to use these legal, non-violent options to save them.
Despite everything you all say on social media, you all STILL LEAVE everyone who TRIES to fight 'Government' with zero support in the real world.
I have not seen any discussion who should conduct this inquiry. I do not know anyone I would trust with this task. I suspect there has been a huge breakdown of trust, without which a society cannot operate. For example, in the past I would trust my doctor to treat me according to his or her best judgement. Not any more, as doctors seemed to become obedient servants of the State.
This could have been answered as part of your submission to the terms of reference consultation.
I fear that my submission was barely polite.
Who is conducting this inquiry? What will be done with the results? Will any media carry them? Isn't this just another sop for couch potatoes to pretent the're doing something?
Happy to see this going on in the UK; it gives me hope that one day the same will occur here in Canada. Keep up the great work, Laura, it's definitely appreciated.
I'll bet your new Liberal-NDP arrangement will make sure that never happens. Plenty of time till 2025 to shred the paperwork. If it does ever happen, the scope will be 'Was the government 100% correct, or should it have locked down/mandated even faster, harder, and longer?'
You have a good point; although even if my gov't doesn't admit it's own error, international pressure might still come to bear once citizens around the world see the crimes that have been committed. It's ironic; when I grew up in the 80's Canada was one of the nations putting pressure on South Africa stop it's discrimantory practices. I never thought I'd be hoping for my own country to be the target one day!
It's Great to see that not ALL journalists & investigators are Dead in England! & some are Awake, Alive & Kicking
Excellent account of what needs to be addressed. Thank you Laura, for all the work you are putting into this
I submitted my response a few weeks ago. Probably missed out quite a few things, but anyway, any response counts.
I saw you included vaccine injuries-will be interesting to see if that one gets taken up. I have been baffled by the government message on vaccines, because no matter what you think about vaccines, they are never 100% safe and in this particular case the level of uncertainty regarding safety was much higher.
Would be interesting if we can get a handle on number of responses received through FOI? What is the criterium for an issue to be added to the inquiry? Who decides?
Very good and thorough summary
Great list and very comprehensive. For #2 I would also single out the elderly, care home residents, single-person households, carers, the disabled, those with mental health conditions, and SEN individuals. Was any impact assessment done about how restrictions and covid protocols would affect these groups?
For #10 I would also question whether any data was collected on the effects of mandatory isolation of those identified as 'close contacts' of positive 'cases'. This was originally 14 days, then cut down to 10, then made dependent on vaccination status, and then, with omicron, it became 5 days regardless of vaccination status. What evidence was used to determine the number of days of isolation for contacts and why was the policy changed in August 2021 to make it conditional on vaccination status? How many work days and school days are estimated to have been lost as a result of healthy people having to isolate (starting in September 2020 when it was made compulsory), and is there any data on what % of those who were isolating went on to develop symptoms?
I would also like to see a specific question into the policy of hotel quarantine and the creation of the 'red list'. Who devised this policy, what evidence supported it, and what % of travellers forced into 14- or 10-day detention periods actually went on to test positive? Again, was any impact assessment done on how hotel quarantine would affect people in particular situations? (Older people, those with health issues, lone travellers, families with small children, people experiencing grief or hardship...) On what legal grounds did the state enforce this, and why were individuals forced to foot the bill for their own detention?
As a general point, I'd also like to question why no attempt was made in spring 2020 to run serological studies to understand how widespread the virus was and how many people may have already had some level of protection from prior infection. Why did models and govt messaging treat this virus as being entirely new as of March 2020, and why was the entire population considered to be immunologically naive to it and susceptible to disease? (Early on, data from the Diamond Princess indicated many people would remain asymptomatic even if infected...)
In terms of specific behavioural psychology questions, I would expand on #2. How many different communications agencies were hired by the govt for the purpose of running media & advertising campaigns, and how much was each contract worth? How many different campaigns involved influencer outreach (at both micro level -- e.g. on-boarding faith leaders and 'community champions' -- and at celebrity level -- e.g. on-boarding the likes of Lewis Hamilton, Ian McKellen, the Royal Family, etc.) and who drove these?
Further areas of inquiry:
How much grant money was awarded to local authorities and other bodies for the purpose of 1) promoting covid rules, covid testing and covid messaging, and 2) increasing vaccination uptake? How was this money spent?
Once Test & Trace was set up, was there any data indicating that the 'tracing' element was accomplishing anything? Similarly, the rollout of the T&T app and the 'pinging' of individuals based on 'checking in' to venues -- what was the scientific grounds for this, what were the objectives, what happened with all the data collected, and what did this technological approach to mitigating viral spread actually achieve?
I could go on, but I'll stop there!
Great summary here and I would be interested to see whether any of this is addressed / responded to in the coming years. We will be feeling the aftermath of this for a long time yet. I’ve had my two children in this pandemic and I just want to be back to normal. I don’t want my children’s speech and language development to be impacted upon and I certainly don’t want them to remember this time. It’s traumatising enough for me. When people say that not wearing a mask makes them feel nervous well people continually wearing them despite the lack of scientific evidence to suggest they work makes me nervous and frankly angry. I am done with all of this. I just want normal life again but I fear we’re a long way from that yet. It’s the classic saying: ‘fear of fear itself’
Masked faces are very unhealthy. Not just for the wearer. But for the health of society.
I'm old enough to remember actually banning facial coverings outright. As recently as 2019, less than three years ago, masks were *banned* outright on public transportation. For good reasons upheld by international courts. Do those rational and legal justifications for banning them not apply today?
2014
"Judges at the European court of human rights (ECHR) have upheld France's burqa ban, accepting Paris's argument that it encouraged citizens to "live together".
The law, introduced in 2010, makes it illegal for anyone to cover their face in a public place...the law was not aimed at the burqa or veil but any covering of the face in a public place...
...The European judges decided...that the preservation of a certain idea of "living together" was the "legitimate aim" of the French authorities.
Isabelle Niedlispacher, representing the Belgian government, which introduced a similar ban in 2011 and which was party to the French defence, declared both the burqa and niqab "incompatible" with the rule of law.
Aside from questions of security and equality, she added: "It's about social communication, the right to interact with someone by looking them in the face and about not disappearing under a piece of clothing."
The French and Belgian laws were aimed at "helping everyone to integrate", Niedlispacher added."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court
2019
"On August 1, 2019, the “Act Partially Prohibiting Face-Covering Clothing,”also known as the “Burqa Ban,” entered into force in the Netherlands. The Act prohibits the wearing of clothing that completely or partially conceals the face in spaces where people are expected to communicate with each other. Thus, face-covering clothing is banned on public transportation and in educational, governmental, and nursing care institutions, but is still allowed in such public spaces as on train platforms. The ban applies to burqas, niqabs, full-face helmets, balaclavas, and masks, but not to headscarves."
https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2019-08-27/netherlands-burqa-ban-enters-into-force/
Until facial coverings are banned outright the manipulated and coerced psychosis that has taken hold of our society will remain. Faces are necessary, are a requirement for public life, for civil society. The rationale that international courts found true just before Covid still applies. It never stopped applying.
Additional scientific background on the importance of faces, visible expressions, for a healthy society and healthy social interactions. A 2009 research study titled, "Of snakes and faces: An evolutionary perspective on the psychology of fear." Yes, they've terrorized us no differently than if they've made us look at snakes all around us all day, every day. It takes constant higher reasoning reminders to self to push through the fear and anxiety masked faces creates just as surely as if surrounded by snakes all the time, even at an subconscious level.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00784.x
I have the freedom to go back to my life without feeling restricted; my children grow up into world where they can see everyone’s’ faces and read their facial expressions and there is no compromise on their speech and language development; I’m not made to feel guilty for not wearing a mask because of the distress is causes me and I don’t read anymore statistics and figures that ‘estimate’ the numbers of covid cases in the UK.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Laura, and response submitted!
Thank you for this reminder, Laura, and for all your work on this. I have submitted my response.
Done....👊👍
Excellent submission Laura one of the areas most concerning was the unacceptable and unaccountable use of the nudge unit to spread lies and enforce compliance via fear. In what other areas is this being used or contemplated : I am sure we could all draw up a list where we feel we are being manipulated
Here's a list that our betters have already drawn up.
https://www.undp.org/library/behavioural-insights-united-nations-achieving-agenda-2030
Download the .pdf they make available on the link. Lots of insights. The UN's Agenda 2030 is a twin presentation of the WEF's Great Reset, fyi.
Behavioral Science is how you will own nothing and be happy. Is how you will eat less meat and prefer eating bugs. In fact, "there's an app for that," for every single public policy agenda you can fathom. A plug-and-play template. Mask adoption. Reduce carbon for climate change. Suggestive gender dysphoria (population control). You name it. Here's the template applying vaccination uptake manipulation:
Template Image: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/sage.png
(This is from a well-sourced piece in part 2 of a 3-part series: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/sages-covert-coup-part-two-project-fear/ )
For additional understanding for Laura's readers, joining with David Cameron's establishment of the BIT in the UK Pres. Obama created the Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST), headed by Maya Shankar (more on her later) in 2015. The SBST ended when Trump eliminated the team...but it was reconstituted at the GSA as the Office of Evaluation Services (OES), serving all federal agencies.
https://oes.gsa.gov/about/
(Archived site) https://sbst.gov/
Both the US and UK teams work closely together on coercing citizens using behavioral science. They tout the "nudges" as gentle and benevolent coercion:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210516040648/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/first-obama-now-cameron-embraces-nudge-theory-2050127.html
A woman named Maya Shankar headed up the SBST under Obama. She is also a coauthor of the UN Behavioral Insights Achieving Agenda 2030 publication linked above. She now serves as Google's Global Behavioral Scientist.
An interview with her from 2017:
https://www.cfr.org/event/behavioral-insights-policymaking
A Chelsea Clinton podcast she was on in 2021 with Frank Luntz, a Republican messaging guru, roommate with GOP House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy. In other words, she has "reach":
https://www.audible.com/pd/Changing-Minds-with-Maya-Shankar-and-Frank-Luntz-Podcast/B0953NMSJJ
The SBST she headed built upon the theories of Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler and their "Nudge Unit" approach to coercion and manipulation as public policy "enhancers." Side note - Sunstein is married to Samantha Power, former Obama UN Ambassador, and he worked closely with Jessica Hertz, who headed up the Biden administration's staff search and served as Biden's Staff Secretary.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/business/behaviorists-show-the-us-how-to-improve-government-operations.html
http://www.watcherofweasels.org/the-social-and-behavioral-sciences-team-sbst-and-why-it-should-scare-you/
It's actually a very small universe of the same people who have insinuated themselves across the entirety of the information power spectrum across the world. We ARE being manipulated in most every single aspect of our lives. The food shortages and inflationary pressures intentionally designed to accustom us to scarcity. Hint: Ukraine-Russia is the cover story, not the meaningful story. The goal is fewer options for consumers, SIMPLER an acronym used by insiders who assert that the masses are overwhelmed by too many choices. Reducing options and choices makes for leaner, more efficient production and supply distribution.
It's everywhere. The science of totalitarianism. Has the whole world in its hands. And is tightening its grip into a firm clench right before our very eyes. It should scare everyone. And it's why taking control of this Inquiry is so important for the future of humanity.
And let there be no mistake when I write that Ukraine-Russia is the cover story, not the meaningful story. If you believe our leaders and the powerful puppetmasters behind them surely wouldn't kill innocent civilians, wouldn't use war to achieve their totalitarian goals allow me to disabuse you of such sentiments. They unleashed a virus and pandemic response - including placing known sick people into vulnerable senior homes across the world - and instituted harsh, known immune system-lowering pandemic restrictions on innocent civilians that have killed millions. Forced experimental gene therapy injections into the arms of innocent civilians, exaggerating efficacy, downplaying injurious and deadly side effects. And God only knows how many other ways they have altered our existences in ways that harm our health and life expectancy.
Joseph Stalin said, "Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet," when commenting on the deaths of innocent civilians as he ushered in Soviet communism. By "eggs" he was referring to "skulls." Such is a totalitarian regime. Where murdering innocent civilians "for their own good," the good of the masses as they envision, is acceptable.
This organization, the Global Association of Applied Behavioural Scientists (GAABS) was created in September, 2020 by the very same behaviorists who are responsible for the abuses of the behavioral sciences. An association created ostensibly as a self-governing entity to define the ethical practice of the behavioral sciences.
https://gaabs.org/
(leading financial sponsors are at the bottom of the Home page, press releases and such under the Resources tab)
The history of such organizations is such that they insinuate themselves into the public policy arena and become the "leading authority" that officials rely on for information and cite when making public policy decisions. That's the cover story, anyways. The reality is they typically become the foxes guarding the henhouse.
I suspect any inquiry being conducted will utilize the resources of GAABS, and other industry insider resources that are similarly controlled by the abusers they are investigating. Comments to the Inquiry might want to take that into account.
Also, a leading behavioral health publication, Health Affairs, is known to be a resource for leaders deciding public policy in the US and worldwide.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/
On the About tab you'll find they proudly declare that the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, John Roberts, cited Health Affairs in his ruling on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
https://www.healthaffairs.org/about
Inquiries like the one being undertaken in the UK are rare opportunities for the public to see and weigh in on issues so consequential to our current and future governance. As a former lobbyist with two decades of experience shaping public health policy at the state level in the US I'm very familiar with how politicians and bureaucrats utilize information to support their desired public policy goals. Cherry-picking and sourcing that which is helpful, ignoring and discrediting that which isn't.
As concerned citizens we must know and identify their tactics and do all we can to push back on their attempts to defer to authority they deem above reproach, such as they'll no doubt try to do with GAABS and have done with HA. "Authorities" that are actually the foxes guarding the henhouses must be called out as such and denied their status. They are infinitely reproachable, and must be reproached.
Thankyou for the work you are doing - Governments need to be held to account and their manipulative actions publicised if for nothing more than to ‘wake people up’, they cannot be allowed to get away with it.
I have made my input, and having read yours just now, I fear we are fighting a lost battle. The UK and many other nations have been signed up to a treaty with the WHO/UN, that commits us to a certain course of actions in the event of a global "pandemic" and I wonder exactly how much freedom our government has had to implement its own policies. The frightening thing is that we are about to sign up to another such treaty, (by 1st May I believe), that will abdicate even more power to the UN/WHO over our lives.
https://principia-scientific.com/the-chilling-reason-they-wont-declare-the-pandemic-over/
Can you imagine in the next "pandemic", (and there WILL be one I'm sure), how we, as individuals might be REQUIRED to submit to a "vaccine" because the treaty states our government must comply with a WHO/UN directive? What use our government then? This is a major step in the direction of a one world government that no one has ever voted for.
I have expressed my concerns to my MP and was given a "speech" in return, effectively dismissing them.
I think we might be totally "fucked".